PEOPLE v. AMATUCCIO (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered December 3, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition in connection with a shooting incident in the defendant's apartment wherein the victim died.  The defendant was acquitted of the charge of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1]) on the ground that the prosecution failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see id. § 35.20[3]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b) (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Mathieu, 83 A.D.3d 735, 735–736, 920 N.Y.S.2d 388).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Penal Law § 265.03(1)(b) (see id. § 265.15[4];  People v. Mathieu, 83 A.D.3d at 736, 920 N.Y.S.2d 388).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213).

The sentences imposed on the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.